ANCOR is actively collecting feedback on how EVV is unfolding in the states in the wake of thepassage of a one-year delay in implementation. Our goal is to inform policy-making to address stakeholders' continuing concernsabout the implications of the technology for individuals supported and parameters set by states as they implement the rule.

Below are the questions from our survey. Under each question, we have listed the responses we have received by state so far. While we are keeping responses anonymous to encourage candid responses, we have not otherwise amended the responses besides stylistic edits necessary for clarity. If there are contradictory responses for a state, that reflects the different perspectives and levels of information of members of the community who respond to the survey. If a state is not listed under a question, it means the respondent(s) skipped that question. If the state name has an asterisk (*) next to it, it means a state agency contributed to the response(s).

States Seeking a Good Faith Delay

Colorado

New York

To your knowledge, which of the following stakeholders has your state engaged for input and perspective relative to EVV (please select all that apply)?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Alabama

None; they just mandated that [providers] use it. Stakeholders had NO INPUT.

Illinois

In Illinois, EVV exists in Home Services for DRS. DDD and DMH almost never discuss it. Online notices exist, [but] it is not part of our current billing processes.

Indiana

Work group formed, very little information received.

Louisiana

None. After the state moved forward with EVV the provider organizations provided a list of written concerns. However, it was after decisions had already been made within the department.

Maryland

Because EVV is already inuse in Maryland for CFC/Community Options/CPAS services, our state DDA has taken the position that they are not required to solicit stakeholder input as EVV expands into the IDD community.

Minnesota

Initial stakeholder meetings did not specifically include HCBS providers, only PCA, home health and managed care organizations. A Jan. 2018 legislative report indicated expanded HCBS stakeholder input would occur, but aside from a request to participate in a provider survey, we don't know if this additional HCBS input occurred.

New Jersey

HMO's and the home health industry. Please note DDD providers have been engaged after the above-mentioned stakeholders but it was at the urging of DDD providers not the state.

New York

The NYS DOH is developing a plan with the agencies involved, such as NY OPWDD, on engaging stakeholders that we hear will be available soon. [ANCOR note: this answer applies to the questions below as well.]

Oregon

As a provider we have not been engaged in any manner.

Pennsylvania

The Department solicited input from beneficiaries, family caregivers, provider agencies and individuals who furnish PCS or home health care services, managed care organizations (MCOs), and other stakeholders.

Virginia*

EVV vendors.

Wisconsin*

In addition to what is listed above, the Wisconsin Department of Health has consulted with other states and CMS.

In what ways have stakeholders been engaged in the process?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Alabama

Providers have voiced concerns to the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Alabama Medicaid.

California

On the IHSS side, there have been a series of conference calls, and they have a basic plan in place. There has been one conference call on the DD side, with more to come.

Illinois

[It] has been kept very quiet.

Louisiana

Stakeholders have not been engaged at all.

Maine

Responded to a survey. Relevant providers are now in the beginning rounds of a mandated 2-part, 2-hour each training. Lots of concerns with NO answers coming out of the training.

Maryland

IDD stakeholders have not been engaged in the process.

Minnesota

In person and webinar "community conversations" occurred in Sept/October 2017.

Ohio

There is a specific email box for policy questions/concerns about EVV that any stakeholder can email. The Ohio Department of Medicaid has been relatively vigilant to make sure these questions are answered in a timely manner.

Oklahoma

We have inserted ourselves into the conversation. The Medicaid agency nor the policy agency sought any input. To make the implementation as simple as possible from their perspective, they just moved to amend the existing contract that the aging service providers were using to not have to solicit another bid and contract.

Pennsylvania

Engagement has been minimal aside from allowing for written comment.

Virginia*

Regulation and policy development.

Washington*

In addition to what is listed above, the Wisconsin Department of Health has created a dedicated EVV webpage and email box.

Has your state established goals relative to its EVV program implementation? If so, what are the goals that they've identified?

EVV Phase I is guided by the following principles: California’s approach to EVV will be consistent with federal law. EVV will be developed through a collaborative stakeholder process. EVV will be developed in a manner that respects recipients and providers, does not alter their Olmstead protections and is minimally burdensome. EVV will not change the number of service hours, nor how or where services are delivered. Use of geo-tracking or global positioning system capabilities (GPS) will not be required. Existing electronic and telephonic timesheet systems will be leveraged for EVV. Providers, recipients and other stakeholders will be trained on the use of the EVV system.

More details shared: "The items above and the following were included in MN statute in 2017: minimal administrative and financial burden to provider, minimal burden and least disruptive to service recipient, best practices for EVV, and consistent with state and federal law."

Additional details shared: Minimum intrusion on care recipient and care provider. Maximizing provider options so that they can best manage their business.

Wisconsin*

Yes. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services is implementing the EVV requirement to be in compliance with the federal 21st Century Cures Act. The Department is looking to meet the requirement while ensuring that there is no disruption in participant benefits and that there is no disruption in providers getting paid for services provided.

In your opinion, to what extent do the state's goals and objectives reflect stakeholder feedback?

Alabama

Stakeholder feedback was primarily the grave concern of implementing it particularly in rural/remote areas and the cost.

Alaska

We have not seen written goals.

California

Feedback on what they've set up for IHSS thus far has been fairly positive. Only a limited number of IDD providers and consumers have been involved. The message from providers is that the state system needs to accept input from the range of systems/softwares providers already use.

Florida

Some of the goals and objectives reflect stakeholder feedback, while others are related to Agency requirements. There are some stakeholder concerns of how the system will work.

Georgia

Unknown - if they have goals they've have not shared them.

Illinois

No real discussion with the state.

Kentucky

Goals do not appear to reflect stakeholder feedback.

Louisiana

Goals do not appear to reflect stakeholder feedback.

Maine

[Providers] have not been asked to give ANY feedback.

Maryland

The state has not solicited any IDD stakeholder feedback.

Minnesota

Some respondents shared: Goals reflect stakeholder feedback.

Other respondents shared: "I have no idea what MN plans are."

Ohio

We are still formulating final steps for people with disabilities. At this point, it appears that goals are in conflict with stakeholder feedback.

Oklahoma

Some respondents shared: "We are pushing for this to be a bigger conversation about having a long term goal (in the next two years) that we implement a state wide software system that the state employee case managers, self advocates and guardians, and private provider staff all use, with EVV being one component of the system. There are several components that we are seeking, but won't go into detail here."

Other respondents shared: "Goals reflect stakeholder feedback."

Oregon

As a stakeholder, [providers'] feedback has not been solicited.

Pennsylvania

Goals do not appear to reflect stakeholder feedback.

Virginia*

Goals reflect stakeholder feedback.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health will implement the EVV requirement using stakeholders input to minimize the burden of this federal requirement.

Did your state complete an evaluation of existing EVV vendor relationships - including those already in use by provider agencies - to make a determination about the capacity of those systems to meet the CURES requirements?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

California

Not that I'm aware of. However, they could be planning to do so. They aren't worrying about the federal deadline, only demonstrating a good faith effort to comply.

Colorado

We are not sure what vendors they did evaluate. However, they did decide that whatever they selected could implement the hybrid model allowing current providers to use their own EVV systems.

Louisiana

We had to push the state to consider the EVV systems that were already being used by provider agencies.

Maryland

If DDA did complete an evaluation, the state association was not made aware. However, in a powerpoint presentation to the state association, DDA indicated they would "be performing Readiness Reviews."

Minnesota

Some respondents shared: Yes, they issued an EVV inventory survey to providers in May 2018.

Other respondents shared: Don't know.

New Jersey

NJ has considered vendor relationships but has not surveyed providers to see what they may be already using. The state did ask [a provider advocacy group] how many of its members already utilize an EVV system. Most of [the group's members] did not utilize an EVV system.

Ohio

These evaluations are done on an agency-by-agency basis. The Ohio Department of Medicaid released technical specifications that each vendor must meet in order for providers to use the system. Each agency wanting to use an alternate EVV vendor must "apply" to the Ohio Department of Medicaid and Sandata to use their existing vendor's system instead of the state-supplied system. Sandata will evaluate and approve the vendor if they meet the outlined specifications.

Utah

They are aware that relationships currently exist, but have not evaluated the systems.

How did that determination impact the state's decisions relative to EVV design and implementation?

California

For providers, they haven't declared EVV design or implementation. They took input during one conf. call.

Illinois

No idea.

Kentucky

Survey results have not yet been released.

Louisiana

The state decided to have a company BUILD an EVV system. We were able to get the state to agree to build a bridge between the state’s system and the systems being used by the providers.

Maine

We don't know.

Maryland

We have no information with which to answer this question.

Minnesota

To the best of knowledge, no survey results have been publicly released. Survey of providers (May 2018) came AFTER initial recommendation of hybrid model with 3rd party data aggregator (January 2018).

New Jersey

The state has not yet designed their system.

Oklahoma

Some respondents stated: It was the sole consideration. Oklahoma will be using First Data.

Other respondents stated: Oklahoma decided to join the DD program on an existing EVV contract for the aging system.

Pennsylvania

Unknown.

Virginia*

A number of Virginia providers already had existing EVV systems.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health's evaluation of existing EVV Vendor relationship resulted in the consideration of an aggregator.

Has your state established a plan to implement, monitor, and oversee their EVV system?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Alaska

An RFI is out nationally limited to PCA and Home Health services (not including HCBS).

California

For providers, they haven't declared EVV design or implementation. They took input during one conf. call.

Indiana

The plan is in progress.

Maine

Some respondents have shared: Not sure about monitor and oversee but they have an implementation plan.

Other respondents have shared: There's a stated plan to implement but specifics are lacking. We have no idea what the state plans is for monitoring and oversight.

Maryland

As far as we know, the state plans to expand the telephonic system that is currently in place for other Medicaid services.

New Jersey

The state has rough plan without any details and not in writing. The stated is developing an RFP for a vendor to aggregate data and the thought is that providers will upload their data to the aggregator. They have said they are looking for an aggregator that is compatible with as many systems as possible.

Pennsylvania

ODP has published that they will release EVV guidance in January of 2019, with implementation occurring by July 2019, and enforcement by January 2020.

Utah

The plan is to allow providers to arrive at their own solution(s).

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health's implementation plan is not established but is in work.

If your state has established an implementation plan, what timeline has been established?

Alabama

Mandated to use it for Personal Care, Companion Care, Nursing , and PT/OT/Sp therapies in October 2017.

Alaska

Not that far [in the process] yet.

Colorado

Currently plan a pilot phase deployment in July 2019.

Florida

Implementation is scheduled to occur in summer 2019.

Indiana

Generally they hope to pilot EVV in summer 2019 and ramp up implementation later in the year to be fully live by 1/1/2020. They have discussed plans for training but nothing concrete has been established.

Louisiana

The EVV system has already been implemented for waiver services. The state will soon begin implementing EVV for support coordination/case management.

Maine

January 1, 2020 with soft launch out prior.

Maryland

DDA originally announced that implementation would begin on 7/1/19. They subsequently pushed the date back to 1/1/20.

New Jersey

A timeline has not been established.

Ohio

Doing it in phases. DD is in the second phase scheduled for summer. Starting to do this in a prior go live phase for elder care and nursing in aging not DD field.

Oklahoma

We are asking that the state be reasy to start onboarding providers in July 2019.

Pennsylvania

See above response.

Utah

The federal timeline at the burden of providers. [ANCOR note: following Congressional intervention, the federal deadline for compliance with EVV moved from January 2019 to January 2020.]

Virginia*

Providers will be allowed to test their systems beginning July 1, 2019 with an implementation date by October 1, 2019.

If your state has established an implementation plan, does it include a readiness review process to ensure the information technology infrastructure is complete and operational prior to implementation and that ensures providers, health plans, and the state have adequate infrastructure and processes in place to use the EVV system?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Indiana

That is what the pilot is for.

Louisiana

N/A - system already in place.

Maryland

We have no information about DDA's implementation plan other than the date of implementation. However, in a powerpoint presentation to the state association, DDA indicated they would "be developing an implementation plan" and "performing Readiness Reviews."

New Jersey

There was discussion at the one stakeholder meeting held with disability provider associations that there would be time before the system is live to test the system but that is not an official policy that we are aware of.

Ohio

Starting to do this in a prior go live phase for elder care and nursing in aging not DD field.

Pennsylvania

To be determined.

Utah

At the burden of providers.

If your state has established an implementation plan, does it include a soft launch strategy (i.e. a time-limited period where the state requires EVV be submitted with a claim but does not deny payment based upon a lack of data or incorrect use of EVV to allow for targeted technical assistance/training)?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Alaska

No that far [in the process] yet.

Louisiana

N/A - system already in place.

Maryland

We have not been given any information about a soft launch.

New Jersey

Details have not yet been discussed.

Ohio

Yes- the soft-launch will begin with training in May of 2019. Agencies may begin to use the system after completing training and will be required to use the system in early fall of 2019. Claims will begin to be denied on basis of EVV in late 2019 or early 2020.

Oklahoma

This is an ask from providers, but no commitment from the Medicaid agency to date.

Virginia*

Virginia will allow a period of time for a concurrent test. That is, submission of EVV information through the test portal while the claim is sent through the regular channels.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health's implementation plan is not established but is in work.

If your state has established an implementation plan, does it include a training plan?

If a training plan is included, what types of training will be provided?

If a training plan is included, does it include requirements that training is done collaboratively, involving all stakeholders?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Colorado

The training plan is not fully developed at this time.

Maryland

We have not been given any information about a training plan.

Ohio

There is specific training for beneficiaries and specific training for providers. They are not trained together but either party may sit through the other's training.

What EVV Design is your state adopting and/or considering?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Alaska

Alaska has talked about vetting having several vendors allowing providers to select with a verbal agreement to include vendors currently being utilized by providers for electronic health records that could include EVV segment.

California

On the IHSS side, CA is expanding its own, current reporting systems. There is no word about what they'll do with service provider organizations.

Iowa

The state has not yet adopted a vendor / EVV design.

Kentucky

No decision has been made.

Maryland

We believe Maryland Medicaid is currently using a state-developed system, but cannot confirm. DDA has had very little communication with the IDD community regarding EVV.

Minnesota

The recommended design is called a "hybrid model with data aggregator." Providers have an option between a state-purchased EVV system to be selected through an RFP and an alternative EVV system that meets minimum requirements set by the state. Providers maintain accountability to the state by submitting data to an aggregator.

Ohio

Providers can use the state provided system for free or can use their own vendor. Agencies must go through the approval process outlined by the state and Sandata to be able to use their vendor.

Oklahoma

Preliminarily we have a verbal commitment that the state option will be First Data, but if a provider is using a system that is EVV compliant, they can continue to use that system at their own cost. The state system will be free for providers who use it.

Pennsylvania

Still awaiting forthcoming guidance.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health is considering the use of a “hybrid model” using aggregator technology to implement EVV. A hybrid model is a combination of a state choice and open model.

Additional ANCOR notes:

Additional respondents in the following states answered "Don't Know": Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon, South Carolina

If your state has opted for the State Choice, Open Vendor, or State Developed model, who have they selected as their vendor?

Alabama

Authenticare.

Alaska

RFI is out so we are not there yet.

Colorado

Sandata.

Florida

Wellsky.

Indiana

Sandata.

Kentucky

No decision has been made.

Louisiana

Statistical Resources, Inc. (SRI).

Maine

Sandata.

Maryland

It appears that Maryland is currently using a statewide in-house vendor, but we do not know who specifically.

New Jersey

The state is developing an RFP for an EVV vendor.

Ohio

Sandata.

Oklahoma

Authenticare First Data.

Pennsylvania

PROMISE fiscal agent contract with DXC.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services announced that our current Medicaid Management Information System fiscal agent, DXC Technology, has selected Sandata Technologies as the electronic visit verification vendor.

What type of EVV solution is your state adopting and/or considering?

Below are additional responses and / or details from:

Colorado

Web-based Global Position Service (GPS) Verification.

They are also considering telephony, and one time password generators as well.

Indiana

The SanData solution is supposed to support web-based GPS and telephony.

Maryland

DDA has announced that they plan to use the same telephonic system that is currently being used for other Medicaid services the system called "ISAS" (In-home Supports Assurance System).

Ohio

Web-based global positioning system.

There has been some significant changes in regards to how the GPS information will be used. At the beginning of the EVV implementation process, if a worker clocked in at an unknown location an exception would be generated in the EVV portal. Agencies would have to go into the system and "clear" the exception before the visit could be submitted. After feedback from stakeholders, this is no longer the case. GPS is still be collected and used in other ways to do fraud, waste, and abuse detection. In addition, the state is allowing telephony and manual visit verification in situations where the individual objects to the device or the device is unavailable.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health plans to offer more than one EVV solution and the specifics are not established but in work.

As part of their stakeholder engagement, has your state addressed the following design/implementation issues:

A) Accommodating service delivery locations with limited to no internet access

B) Affording participants the flexibility to schedule their services based upon their own needs and preferences

C) Ensuring that the system does not require rigid scheduling and can accommodate last-minute changes

D) Enabling services to be provided at multiple locations for each individual

E) Allowing for multiple service delivery locations in a single visit

F) Providing participants with the ability to review and approve all timesheets

G) Please share any additional information of interest:

California

Answers above are for the IHSS side of the process. And I don't understand how the scheduling of service would be affected by the EVV reporting.

Indiana

We have discussed all of these issues during Stakeholder Group meetings. The state has yet to make final determinations. They have said that participants will need to sign off on each EVV record.

Maryland

There has been no IDD stakeholder engagement.

Minnesota

Providers concerned about cost implementation and system maintenance, sufficient training for users of the systems, 24/7 technical support, service recipients had privacy concerns, ability for multiple languages to be included.

Ohio Response

Ohio is allowing for telephony and manual visit verification if the preferred EVV system is not available. This should help eliminate issues with internet access concerns.

CMS identified involving providers in decision-making as a promising practice in EVV implementation. Do you believe your state has engaged providers by soliciting ongoing input and establishing a feedback loop?

California

Well, maybe. They held a phone call. They accepted comments.

Louisiana

No - however, our state was well down the EVV path before the [21st Century] Cures Act was passed.

Maryland

There has been no communication with IDD providers.

New Jersey

The state was only alerted that DDD providers must comply with the Cures EVV for personal care services after [providers] alerted them following a presentation by [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) national staff] at the ANCOR Government Relations retreatin January 2018. To date, the DD provider associations have only been included in one stakeholder meeting but stakeholders were provided with a draft of the RFP that is under development. A meeting was scheduled in August, however, the meeting was cancelled with a heads up for a fall meeting. However, another meeting has not yet been scheduled.

Ohio

The Ohio Department of Medicaid has held monthly stakeholder meetings open to any stakeholder and has an email account specifically for policy questions and concerns related to EVV. Stakeholder meetings have served more as a forum for the Department of Medicaid to provide updates and listen to concerns. Most discussions on if the system should be reformed and the feasibility of such reforms has happened outside of these public forums between the relevant state departments. The Department of Developmental Disabilities has presented at one stakeholder meeting about EVV specific I/DD services but has not convened their own stakeholder group.

As you consider your state's overall EVV Implementation efforts, please share any practices, policies, and/or strategies that have been effective.

Alaska

SDS hired a respected contractor in 2018 to help with community forums and communication. With a change in Directors there has been limited communication on EVV and the consultant is no longer being utilized.

Colorado

The State has implemented 4 subgroups (privacy, participant directed, training, and system design). This has been effective to eliminate some of the distractions that occur at general stakeholder meetings.

Florida

Florida will be able to share practices, policies, and/or strategies that are effective as we proceed with our implementation process.

Indiana

The Stakeholder Group has been helpful to ensure our concerns and questions are heard. [Stakeholders] are hopeful that it will lead to better outcomes.

Kentucky

A provider survey was done Summer 2018, but no discussion of results or outreach to stakeholders since then.

Maine

Not based on what they have provided to date. There is no mechanism for stakeholder input or communication made to individuals supported/families, etc.

Minnesota

Communication has been sorely lacking.

Ohio

One of the best things a state can do is have a soft roll-out period where agencies can get used to the system without the fear of losing payment. While some stakeholders may feel like the Department of Medicaid has not listened to their feedback, there have been some substantial changes to the program since it was designed and introduced because of issues that were highlighted during the roll-out of the first EVV phase. States need to enter contracts where there is the opportunity to revise the system as needed and states need to be open to implementing change even after they have launched their EVV system.

Oklahoma

Providers have been able to engage the state agencies in planning.

Pennsylvania

The provider survey and the RFI will give DHS an understanding of the full capabilities of EVV systems and the needs of providers.

As you consider your state's overall EVV Implementation efforts, please share any practices, policies, and/or strategies that have been challenging.

Alabama

No choice in the system. Many Providers in AL were already using Therap for their electronic record -- this would have been the preferred vendor.

Colorado

The State has increased the number of services that will be subject to EVV requirements. This will be quite challenging especially since many of the services are provided in the community and not technically required by the Act.

Florida

Florida will be able to share practices, policies, and/or strategies that are challenging as we proceed with our implementation process.

Illinois

Needs to be discussion with the state to understand and plan what they want. Has not happened.

Indiana

Although [stakeholders] have had the opportunity to share concerns, it seems that state staff do not understand the potential impact and scope of the issues. They seem to prefer waiting for the pilot to determine if the concerns raised are really issues and to identify solutions.

Kentucky

Almost no communication on the issue from KY Medicaid. It's only discussed if providers bring it up, but there are never any answers.

Louisiana

One respondent shared:

- Having a single state-developed EVV system (developed by an entity that did not have any experience or expertise in EVV).

- Building a bridge to existing EVV systems used by providers.

- Lack of adequate training for providers.

- Lack of adequate time to phase in EVV.

- Rules built into the EVV system that result in wasted time and effort of providers.

- Requiring DSPs to change their password every 90 days.

Another respondent shared:

- EVV mandated for Day Hab, Supported Employment and Transportation Services. If a provider picks up an individual from a day service program and clocks the individual in but the day service program has not clocked them out, billing overlaps occur which result in denials.

- EVV compliance requirements to not edit more than a % (usually 5-10%) of records. This is a difficult target for providers to maintain as state EVV software is often not user-friendly, leading to low compliance levels.

- Automatic “smoothing” of billing if in/out overlaps occur between 2 staff serving the same individual or denial of billing with overlaps greater than 15 minutes

Maine

One respondent shared: The rurality of Maine and the fact that people are often provided services outside of their house location (BHP's and kiddos being the biggest problem area) have caused concern. In addition, staff training and limited technology savviness of our workforce is concerning. We anticipate a lot of administrative support being needed to make corrections/train staff.

Another respondent shared: Most are still unknown. We clearly do not have enough time to implement since the series of training isn’t even over until March.

Minnesota

One respondent shared: Ongoing and regular communication from DHS about the status of the EVV implementation has been very poor. They have an EVV mailbox to which questions can be emailed, but it's rare to get a response. To the best of our knowledge, the last formal communication on EVV from DHS was their request for providers to complete a survey in May 2018.

Another respondent shared: Communication has been sorely lacking.

New Jersey

It was a challenge that the EVV discussions began without provider input because of a lack of clarity and guidance from CMS, therefore, providers are late to the discussion but willing participants. [There] has not really been an opportunity to focus on concerns in the DDD arena [because of challenges with scheduling a second stakeholder meeting].

Ohio

External case management.

Oklahoma

Firm commitments related to process, details and time frames have been incredibly challenging.

Pennsylvania

The delays and uncertainty of what the state will ultimately do.

Virginia

Note: unlike previous responses this specific response not provided by the state.

Virginia is not providing a state system but is requiring providers to pay for 837 format billing submissions on “security grounds”. This will force providers to pay for a higher cost service while other states (Ohio) don’t require 837 format.

Wisconsin*

The lack of a definition of personal care services at the federal level has been challenging. Services subject to EVV are in a variety of personal care and supportive home care services across multiple service delivery models. This has required the state to explore the associated code sets and waiver benefit descriptions to understand which services would be impacted and if changes are needed.

As you consider the provider community's response to EVV implementation, please share any practices and/or strategies that have been effective in advancing your advocacy objectives.

Florida

Florida will be able to share practices, policies, and/or strategies that are effective in advancing advocacy objectives as we proceed with our implementation process.

Indiana

The state has set up a mailbox for stakeholders to submit questions/concerns. [Advocacy organizations] are encouraging members to submit questions to reinforce messaging and provide a better understanding of how widespread some concerns are.

New Jersey

Persistence to have DDD providers included.

Ohio

Attending and voicing concerns.

Pennsylvania

The incorporation into the guidance the insights, questions and feedback from consumers and individual providers of consumer directed programs.

Virginia*

Working with the disability community is important.

Wisconsin*

The Wisconsin Department of Health (DHS) is engaging in a very transparent process for implementation and seeking feedback from multiple sources. DHS has established an advisory group that includes members and participants, engaging in public forums to answer questions and get feedback, and has established a web portal and distribution list to disseminate information. Further information can be found at the following website: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/forwardhealth/evv.htm

Is your state applying to CMS for a Good Faith Delay of implementation of EVV?

Maine

The MaineCare Advisory Committee and the Maine Association for Community Providers have made a formal request to the Maine Department of Human Services to seek an exemption from CMS. No response yet.

Please feel free to share anything additional that may be of interest.

Alabama

Although the federal implementation timeline was delayed--our state decided to continue with implementation anyway.

Indiana

Implementation data is scarce at best. Many unknowns to be answered as lack of answers above should notate. Concern as to cost, implementation, etc etc. especially if required in a shared service setting.

Maryland

[Providers were] informally advised by CMS that DDA is legally correct in their position that they are not required to seek IDD stakeholder input in light of the fact that EVV is already in place in Maryland for other Medicaid services.

New Jersey

The Division of Developmental Disabilities recently established a work group on EVV, however, to our knowledge it is an internal group and does not include stakeholders.

Ohio

Major dispute on GPS and privacy.

Pennsylvania

While our state proposes an open system that providers can "opt" to use, there is no provision for purchasing any needed equipment to use the system.

South Carolina

We have heard through the " grapevine", that Therap, our state records contract, will meet EVV requirements, but nothing official.

Disclaimer:

ANCOR is reporting this information as received as answers to our surveys and by email to evv@ancor.org. ANCOR is not able to fact check every detail provided but uses our best judgment before posting. If you have questions about any information posted here please contact evv@ancor.org. This site serves as a public forum, but you can always contact CMS’ official technical assistance email, evv@cms.hhs.gov.